Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Toto · 09-01-2011, 11:15 PM

The Gnostics: Myth, Ritual, and Diversity in Early Christianity (or via: amazon.co.uk) by David Brakke

Quote:

This book offers an illuminating discussion of recent scholarly debates over the concept of “Gnosticism” and the nature of early Christian diversity. Acknowledging that the category “Gnosticism” is flawed and must be reformed, David Brakke argues for a more careful approach to gathering evidence for the ancient Christian movement known as the Gnostic school of thought. He shows how Gnostic myth and ritual addressed basic human concerns about alienation and meaning, offered a message of salvation in Jesus, and provided a way for people to regain knowledge of God, the ultimate source of their being.

Rather than depicting the Gnostics as heretics or as the losers in the fight to define Christianity, Brakke argues that the Gnostics participated in an ongoing reinvention of Christianity, in which other Christians not only rejected their ideas but also adapted and transformed them. This book will challenge scholars to think in news ways, but it also provides an accessible introduction to the Gnostics and their fellow early Christians.

reviewed here by James McGrath

Quote:

Brakke suggests that some of the confusion about terminology in relation to “Christianity” and “Gnosticism” is due to confusion about which of two types of categories these are. Heuristic categories are ones that help modern scholars make sense of data, speaking, for instance, of “apocalyptic Judaism” even though members of the Qumran group and Paul the apostle would probably not either have self-identified as such or have considered themselves part of “the same movement.” Social categories, on the other hand, seek to describe, however imperfectly, “how ancient people actually saw and organized themselves” (16). Although the two can overlap, the distinction remains important, and Brakke writes that Gnosticism “is an outstanding example of a scholarly category that, thanks to confusion about what it is supposed to do, has lost its utility and must be either abandoned or reformed” (19).

Henry More coined the term “Gnosticism” (as well as the term “monotheism”) in the seventeenth century as a designation for the array of views that Irenaeus and other ancient heresiologists wrote about. Brakke indicates, on the one hand, the need not to treat Irenaeus uncritically and to strive to get behind and beyond the face value of his use of the term “gnostic.” On the other hand, Brakke emphasizes that Irenaeus is clearly not completely wrong nor simply making everything that he says up, so a complete dismissal
of the information from Irenaeus is unjustified. . . .

I see implications here for Roger Parvus' theory on Ignatius.

stephan huller · 09-02-2011, 09:16 AM

I have no idea what is the significance of any of this. Scholars have an amazing way of complicating even the simplest concepts. Can't they express themselves in straightforward ways instead of appearing like a phone cord that has been all knotted up by being twisted many times over. I bet I could sum this up in a sentence if I bothered to figure out what exactly he is trying to say. I am on my vacation though. Maybe I will take a second look later.

If his point is that 'gnosticism' is a recently invented and ultimately meaningless term that has more to do with esoteric circles in seventeenth and eighteenth century than groups in antiquity, I agree. Yet scholars persist in using it along with its 'circle of Madame Blavatsky' implications (later phenomenon than More but perfect exemplification of what scholars think 'the gnostics' were like). I've said it many times before, they lack imagination.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

09-02-2011, 09:16 AM	#2
stephan huller Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: seattle, wa Posts: 9,337	I have no idea what is the significance of any of this. Scholars have an amazing way of complicating even the simplest concepts. Can't they express themselves in straightforward ways instead of appearing like a phone cord that has been all knotted up by being twisted many times over. I bet I could sum this up in a sentence if I bothered to figure out what exactly he is trying to say. I am on my vacation though. Maybe I will take a second look later. If his point is that 'gnosticism' is a recently invented and ultimately meaningless term that has more to do with esoteric circles in seventeenth and eighteenth century than groups in antiquity, I agree. Yet scholars persist in using it along with its 'circle of Madame Blavatsky' implications (later phenomenon than More but perfect exemplification of what scholars think 'the gnostics' were like). I've said it many times before, they lack imagination.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.